|
|
Posted by M.I.5 on 01/05/07 09:02
"Joshua Zyber" <joshzyber@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2o6dnd4J7K35OwDYnZ2dnUVZ_vipnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "M.I.5" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:459cbfe2$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>>> Movies are still unable to utilise the reproduction capabilities of DVD
>>>> (though a few made directly from 65mm negatives have come somewhere
>>>> close). Only video originated material is fully able to expolit DVD -
>>>> and then only from professional cameras.
>>>
>>> What in the world are you talking about? This is a ridiculous claim.
>>> 35mm film has vastly more resolution than video, even High-Def. DVD
>>> barely captures a fraction of it.
>>
>> That is very true. However the process of converting it to video looses
>> a surprising amount of the resolution due to technical limitations. This
>> is ably demonstrated by the credits at the end of most movies. While
>> easily read on a cinema screen, they are hard to make out on a DVD, yet
>> the DVD itself is more than capable of resolving them. The fact remains
>> that video sources give better resolution than film sources. Even 65mm
>> negative cannot be converted with the resolution of a good video source
>> (but it's not bad).
>
> This is completely, utterly, absurdly false. Film and video have
> inherently different 'looks' to them due to contrast range, depth of
> field, frame rate, and other factors. On a small screen, video may look
> "sharper" (in a completely artificial sense), but it certainly does not
> have any more resolution than film-based content.
>
If you really want to be padantic, The resolution of film, analogue video
and digital video are impossible to compare in any quanitifiable way because
they manifest themselves in inherently different ways and have to be
measured and quantified in very different ways.
Video sourced material on a DVD is much sharper than film originated
material. It cannot really be measured but it is a fact (and you have
agreed that that is the case). Film material projected onto a screen is
sharper than video originated material. Again, it can't be measured, but it
is true.
> If you're having problems reading movie credits on DVDs, it's probably
> your TV and/or DVD player causing the problem. Can I assume you still use
> an interlaced set?
I only have problems reading the very small credits (as does everyone else).
As the DVD is interlaced, what possible difference can it make?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|